Said Abayye, “In accord with the view of R. Assi it makes more sense.” For said R. Abba, said R. Judah, said Samuel, [93a] “The fat that is covered by meat is permitted.” It makes sense to conclude that [fat which is] `on them at the loins' the Torah said [is prohibited]. But not the fat that is in the loins.” [The verse is: “And the two kidneys with the fat that is on them at the loins, and the appendage of the liver which he shall take away with the kidneys” (Lev. 3:4).]
D. Here too [it makes sense to conclude that the fat] that is on the kidneys the Torah said [is prohibited]. But not the fat that is in the kidneys.
V.3
A. Reverting to the body of the prior text: Said R. Abba, said R. Judah, said Samuel, “The fat that is covered by meat is permitted.” Is this accurate? For lo, said R. Abba, said R. Judah, said Samuel, “This fat that is under the loins is prohibited.” Said Abayye, “When it is alive an animal moves its joints [and uncovers this fat].”
B. Said R. Yohanan, “I am not a butcher, nor am I the son of a butcher. But I do recall that they used to say this in the house of study: `When it is alive an animal moves its joints.'”
V.4
A. Said R. Abba, said R. Judah, said Samuel, “The fat on the omasum and on the reticulum is prohibited and the punishment [for eating it] is extirpation.” And this [what the verse refers to as] “the fat that is on the entrails.” [The verse is: “And from the sacrifice of the peace offering, as an offering by fire to the Lord, he shall offer the fat covering the entrails and all the fat that is on the entrails” (Lev. 3:3).]
B. And said R. Abba, said R. Judah, said Samuel, “The fat on the innominate bone is prohibited and the punishment [for eating it] is extirpation.” And this [what the verse refers to as] “the fat that is on them at the loins” (Lev. 3:4).
C. And said R. Abba, said R. Judah, said Samuel, “The veins in the fore-leg are prohibited.” Said R. Safra, “Moses! Did the Torah say not to eat any meat? [This prohibition is too extreme.]” Said Raba, “Moses! Did the Torah say you should eat blood? [This prohibition is appropriate.]”
D. If one cut it and salted it [to remove the blood] then it is perfectly acceptable even to cook it in a stew-pot.
V.5
A. Said R. Judah, said Samuel, “[The fat on] the first cubit of intestines needs to be scraped off.” And this is [what they refer to as] “the fat that is on the small intestines.”
B. And said R. Judah, “The veins in the rump are prohibited [as forbidden fat (Cashdan)].”
C. There are five veins in the loins. Three are on the right side and two are on the left side. Each of the three branches out to two more. Each of the two branches out to three more. We derive from this that if one removes [the veins] while [the meat] is still warm, they slip right out. But if not, he must dig after it [to get out all of these enumerated veins].
D. Said Abayye, and some maintain it was R. Judah, “There are five [prohibited] veins. Three [are prohibited] because of fat and two are prohibited because of blood. [The veins] of the spleen, the loins and the kidneys [are prohibited] because of fat. [The veins] of the foreleg and of the cheeks [are prohibited] because of blood. What do we derive from this [is the difference between the prohibited veins]? Those [that are prohibited] because of blood, if he cuts them out and salts them, they are perfectly acceptable. Those [that are prohibited because of fat], there is no redress for them.”
E. Said R. Kahana, and some maintain it was R. Judah, “There are five [prohibited] membranes. Three [are prohibited] because of fat and two are prohibited because of blood. [The membranes] of the spleen, the loins and the kidneys [are prohibited] because of fat. [The membranes] of the testicles and of the brain [are prohibited] because of blood.”
F. R. Judah bar Oshaia used to peel spleens for Levi the son of R. Huna bar Hiyya. He used to trim it from the top (Cashdan: the thick part where it attached to the rumen). He [Levi] said to him, “[Peel off] further down.” His father came and found him. He said to him, “This is what your mother's father said in the name of Rab.” And who was that? R. Jeremiah bar Abba: “The Torah prohibited only [the fat] that is on the breast of the spleen (Cashdan: the membrane over the thick part).”
G. Is this accurate? For lo, said R. Hamnuna, “It was taught on Tannaite authority: The membrane on the spleen is prohibited but they are not liable for [eating] it.” What is the circumstance? If you maintain [that it means the membrane] on the breast of the spleen, why is it that they are not liable for [eating] it? Rather it must be [that it means the membrane] of the whole [spleen].” He said to him, “If that was taught on Tannaite authority [then I disagree with what] was taught on Tannaite authority.”
V.6
A. Reverting to the body of the previous text: Said R. Hamnuna, “It was taught on Tannaite authority: The membrane on the spleen is prohibited but they are not liable for [eating] it. The membrane on the kidney is prohibited but they are not liable for [eating] it.” But lo it was taught on Tannaite authority: They are liable for [eating] it.
B. From one [ruling regarding the] spleen to the other there is no contradiction. This one [that says he is liable refers to the membrane] at the breast [of the spleen at the top]. This one [that says he is not liable refers to the membrane] not at the breast [of the spleen at the top].
C. From one [ruling regarding the] kidney to the other there also is no contradiction. This one [that says he is liable refers to] the upper part [of the membrane]. This one [that says he is not liable refers to] the lower part.
V.7
A. Defective testicles [of a beast] (Jastrow: mashed, undeveloped; Cashdan: crushed, dislocated): R. Ammi and R. Assi [disputed their status]. One prohibited [eating] them. And one permitted [eating] them. The one who prohibited them [did so because he reasoned that] [93b] since they will not heal back, they have the status of a limb torn from a live animal. The one who permitted them [did so because he reasoned that] as long as they do not putrefy, there is life in them [i.e., they are living tissue]. And the other [would respond to this point by arguing] these do not putrefy because they are not exposed to the air [but they are not living tissue]. And the other would respond [to the first justification by arguing] these do not heal back because they became emaciated.
B. Said R. Yohanan to R. Shaman bar Abba, “These defective testicles are permitted but you may not eat them on account of [the custom of your family based on the verse], “Hear, my son, your father's instruction, and reject not your mother's teaching” (Prov. 1:8).
C. Said Mar bar R. Ashi, “The testicles of a kid up to thirty days old are permitted [for eating] without peeling. After that, if they contain semen, they are prohibited [Rashi: because of the prohibition of blood]. If they do not contain semen, they are permitted. And how do we know if they contain [semen]? If they have red striations [in the membrane], they are prohibited. If they do not have red striations, they are permitted.”
D. [Regarding] red meat, testicles and neck-arteries there was a dispute between R. Aha and Rabina. Regarding all of the rest of [the rules of] the Torah, Rabina held the more lenient view and R. Aha held the stricter view. And the law accords with the more lenient view of Rabina. The exception is these three [items] where R. Aha holds the more lenient view and Rabina holds the stricter view. And the law accords with the more lenient view of R. Aha.
E. [Regarding] bruised red meat [where there was congealed blood from an injury] — if he cut it and salted it [to remove the blood] it is perfectly acceptable even to cook it in a stew-pot. One also may suspend it on a spit [and roast it over a fire] so the blood exudes. [One who put it] on the coals [to barbecue] — R. Aha and Rabina disputed this case. One said that it draws [the blood] out of it. And one said it draws [the blood] into it. And the same rules apply to testicles and the same rules apply to neck-arteries.
V.8
A. A head put on hot ashes — if he put it down on the neck opening where it was slaughtered, the blood exudes and it is permitted. [If he put it down sideways, [the blood] congeals inside it and it is prohibited. If he put it down on its nostrils, if he stuck something into them [so the blood would flow out] it is permitted. If he did not, it is prohibited.
B. There are those that state the matter [in another version]: [If he put it down] on its nostrils or on the neck opening where it was slaughtered, the blood exudes [and it is permitted]. If he put it down sideways, if he stuck something into it [so that the blood exudes] it is permitted. And if not, it is prohibited.
V.9
A. Said R. Judah said Samuel, “As to the two sinews, the inner one (Cashdan: the great sciatic nerve), near the bone, is prohibited, and one is liable on account of eating it to a flogging; the outer one (Cashdan: the common peroneal, the longest branch of the nerve), near the meat, is prohibited, but one is not liable on its account.” [Cf. b. 91a, I.1 H above.]
B. But lo it was taught on Tannaite authority: The inner one is near the meat. Said R. Aha, said R. Kahana, “[At one point the sinew] disappears in the meat (so Jastrow: it goes in like a key).”
C. But lo it was taught on Tannaite authority: The outer one is near the bone. Said R. Judah, “Where the butchers cleave it [so as to remove the sinew it is near the bone].”
V.10
A. It was stated: A butcher who was found after [cutting the meat] to leave fat on [it through negligence] — R. Judah said, “The bulk of a barley-corn.” R. Yohanan said, “An olive's bulk.” [Explained in the next paragraph.]
B. Said R. Pappa, “And they do not dispute [regarding this matter of the butcher's negligence]. This one [Yohanan] states the minimum he must leave if we are to administer stripes to him. This one [Judah] states the minimum he must leave if we are to remove him [as a butcher].”
C. Said Mar Zutra, “The bulk of a barley-corn [of fat] must be in one place. The olive's bulk [can be comprised by combining the quantity of the remaining fat] in two or three places.”
D. And the law is: if we are to administer stripes to him [he must leave fat in the quantity of] an olive's bulk; if we are to remove him [as a butcher he must leave fat in the quantity even of] a barley-corn.
VI.1
A. “Butchers are not believed concerning [the claim that they removed] the sinew of the hip,” the words of R. Meir [M. 7:1 G]. Said R. Hiyya bar Abba, said R. Yohanan, “They reverted to say they are believed.” Said R. Nahman, “Have the generations become more proper?” [No, the reason they said this is] originally when they reasoned in accord with the view of R. Meir, they did not believe them. Finally they reasoned in accord with the view of R. Judah.
B. There are those who teach this matter with regard to the latter text of the Mishnah: And sages say, “They are believed (1) concerning it and (2) concerning the [forbidden] fat (Lev. 3:17, 7:23)[M. 7:1 H].” Said R. Hiyya bar Abba, said R. Yohanan, “They reverted to say they are not believed.” Said R. Nahman, “Nowadays they are believed.” Have the generations become more proper? [No, the reason they said this is] originally when they reasoned in accord with the view of R. Judah, [they did believe them]. Later they reasoned in accord with the view of R. Meir.
C. As long as they remembered the view of R. Judah, they still did not believe them. But now that they have forgotten the view of R. Judah, they believe them.
VII.1
A. Concerning the [forbidden] fat (Lev. 3:17, 7:23)[M. 7:1 H]: Where was fat mentioned earlier? [In G it is not the subject of the dispute.]
B. Here is how you should state the matter: “Butchers are not believed (1) concerning [the claim that they removed] the sinew of the hip, or (2) concerning the [forbidden] fat” [the words of R. Meir]. And sages say, “They are believed (1) concerning it and (2) concerning the [forbidden] fat.”
Unit I.1 engages in Mishnah-criticism and clarifies its operative principles. I.2-3 raise second level issues that relate to the application of M.'s principles. I.4 moves on to tertiary matters. II.1 clarifies the authorship of the passage. II.2 aligns the view of the Mishnah-passage with its counterpart passages in Tosefta. II.3 turns to a direct analysis of the Tosefta-passage and provides its scriptural basis. II.4-5 then develop the issue of the basis in scripture for the prohibition of the sinew out of the foregoing reference to the verse.
II.6-13 provide tertiary materials related to the general themes and to the verses set forth above. III.1 sets forth a direct and brief criticism of M. IV.1 glosses and provides explanation of M. D-F and clarifies the case of M. and the authorship of the views. V.1-10 gives us an appendix, independent of M. but on its topic. It presents a sustained inquiry on forbidden sinews, fats, membranes and other parts of the animal. VI.1 clarifies the rule and authorship of the M.-passage and VII.1 clarifies the correct reading for the end of the M.-passage.
7:2 A
A. A man sends to a gentile a thigh in which the sinew of the hip [is located], because its place [presence] is known.
I.1
A. [A man sends] a whole one, yes; a cut-up one, no. What circumstance are we dealing with? If you maintain [that we deal with] a place where they do not publicize it [in the event that an animal was found to be terefah] [94a] one should be permitted to send to him also a cut-up thigh [with the sinew in it because] lo, they [i.e, Jews] would not buy any meat from him [i.e., from a gentile since they suspect it is terefah (Rashi)].
No comments:
Post a Comment